TonyWilson wrote:Anything but widescreen is a betrayal of the worker, tape, get with the program(pogrom?)

Wow, talk about elitism, it looks like I have stumbled onto the devil's lair, the children of Marx live after all, and will not rest until the full screen format is no longer. So be it, I'll just keep zooming in my movies and screw your aspect ratio and preserving the content bullshit. (I can always pay 20 bucks to see it in eyemax) As my Progressive lady would say "Power to the people"

So is it that you want all films to be made with a 4:3 aspect ratio?

What particular technical or aesthetic issue do you have with widescreen or cinemascope pictures?

i think his issue is that we are stealing his precious tv screen "property" and filling it with black space. that's why it's marxist. i guess we just need to send him to the gulag for some "re-education".

TheBaxter wrote:i think his issue is that we are stealing his precious tv screen "property" and filling it with black space. that's why it's marxist. i guess we just need to send him to the gulag for some "re-education".

seriously though... i can't take anyone seriously who tries to make something like this into a political issue. the way terms like "marxist" and "socialist" and "fascist" get thrown around these days, all they mean anymore is "something i don't agree with." anyone who tries to use them over a debate as silly as this is basically showing their ignorance over what those words mean, and therefore their own opinion is of little or no value.

Thank you, well, I may have found someone I can reason with. As noted I am not asking for all DVDs to be formatted in full screen. I am asking to either get both formats in the DVD, or give me the option to buy it in full screen format at the store. As you know that option is rapidly dwindling and less and less DVDs are coming out in full screen, so there goes your authoritarian argument.Secondly, It does not matter whether the tv screen is 19 or 65 inches, the letter box is distracting and reduces the viewing area. If the same problem existed at movie theater screen would the same people argue that it is still ok?

Finally, the amount that is cutoff is negligible, and if others want to pay the price the industry sets to see the entire content, albeit smaller, in their home screen that is their prerogative, but do not limit my screen's capability. The most fascist thing that can happen is somebody else deciding for you, and the movie industry behind the letter box are the true fascists here.

Fievel wrote:movieguru..... welcome to the Zone.

Having said that, your statements are wrong. Between Fullscreen and Widescreen, if anything is the result of an authoritarian mentality it would be Fullscreen.

Who decides which parts of the original picture are cut out?Who decides where the zoom will focus on?Who decides I ask you?

The removal of an artist's content from a film is much more fascist than the lack of a fullscreen option.

movieguru1 wrote:Thank you, well, I may have found someone I can reason with. As noted I am not asking for all DVDs to be formatted in full screen. I am asking to either get both formats in the DVD, or give me the option to buy it in full screen format at the store. As you know that option is rapidly dwindling and less and less DVDs are coming out in full screen, so there goes your authoritarian argument.Secondly, It does not matter whether the tv screen is 19 or 65 inches, the letter box is distracting and reduces the viewing area. If the same problem existed at movie theater screen would the same people argue that it is still ok?

well, the same thing DOES happen in movie theaters. there are two standard ratios for films, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (not to mention the odd film here and there with something like 2.40:1 or 2.55:1). and guess what they do? they usually use curtains or screens to block out the unused portion of the screen when the film ratio and the screen ratio differ. you didn't think they actually changed movie screens for different movie aspect ratios, did you? so you either need to 1) complain to your theater every time they show a 2.35:1 film and tell them you want to have the sides chopped off so it fills up the whole 1.85:1 screen, or 2) buy some curtains for your tv.

movieguru1 wrote:Finally, the amount that is cutoff is negligible, and if others want to pay the price the industry sets to see the entire content, albeit smaller, in their home screen that is their prerogative, but do not limit my screen's capability. The most fascist thing that can happen is somebody else deciding for you, and the movie industry behind the letter box are the true fascists here.

cropping a 2.35:1 film to a 1.33:1 screen loses approximate 40% of the picture. that's hardly negligible. but thanks again for reminding us that you have no idea what the word "fascist" means.

movieguru1, there are a few points you've ignored in/about people's replies so far, so if you want to have a sensible discussion about the subject, you might wanna think of addressing the following, otherwise you'd just essentially be a troll honking on the commie horn:

1. You came in belting "Marxism" in regards to your view of the widescreen format, naturally this would make your statement the target of some amount of ridicule... but you didn't necessarily need to become so defensive. An outrageous statement will beget outrageous replies, you can't hold that against people on any grounds.2. If you had a widescreen television, would you ask that programs available on 1.33:1 aspect ratio be cropped at the top and bottom so they'd fit nicely in your television viewing area?3.

movieguru1 wrote:If the same problem existed at movie theater screen would the same people argue that it is still ok?

Actually this happens all the time in movie theaters... some films are shot in different aspect ratios than others, and only very rarely do I see the entirety of a movie theater screen taken up by the picture, usually there are empty spaces above and below the picture on a movie screen. So...

TheBaxter wrote:seriously though... i can't take anyone seriously who tries to make something like this into a political issue. the way terms like "marxist" and "socialist" and "fascist" get thrown around these days, all they mean anymore is "something i don't agree with." anyone who tries to use them over a debate as silly as this is basically showing their ignorance over what those words mean, and therefore their own opinion is of little or no value.

This x 1000.

It is an absolutely distasteful to use these terms when discussing anything other than the brutal fascism of our mods.

I once watched Silverado in 4:3 and the final showdown between Kline and Dennehy was really funny, because you could not see them, the picture was so badly chopped off, they both where standing "outside" the screen.But you could see the smoke while they fired their guns.And there is the scene where Costner shoots two dudes standing left and right of him. I cant see the bullets hit, because again they are standing outside the screen.I just want to see the "whole" picture and not just a fraction of it.Thank you.

TheBaxter wrote:seriously though... i can't take anyone seriously who tries to make something like this into a political issue. the way terms like "marxist" and "socialist" and "fascist" get thrown around these days, all they mean anymore is "something i don't agree with." anyone who tries to use them over a debate as silly as this is basically showing their ignorance over what those words mean, and therefore their own opinion is of little or no value.

This x 1000.

It is an absolutely distasteful to use these terms when discussing anything other than the brutal fascism of our mods.

wait... weren't all the marx bros. films in 1.33:1, or "fullscreen" as movieguru incorrectly puts it? so that proves that it is not us, but movieguru, and anyone else who argues in favor of "fullscreen", who is in fact the marxist!

The first 30 times they shit on pan and scan I was like "great points, and well visualized", then the next 30 times I was like "OK guys, I fucking get it!", then the next 30 times I was all like "Jesus fellas, enough already"...

TheBaxter wrote:i think his issue is that we are stealing his precious tv screen "property" and filling it with black space. that's why it's marxist. i guess we just need to send him to the gulag for some "re-education".

WIDESCREEN GOOD! FULLSCREEN BAD!

I'll try to explain my point of view one more time, and I won't even mind that nobody in this site seems to know the true meaning of the Marxist and Fascist ideologies. By the way, it is all political.I have a widescreen TV, and I like to watch movies without the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen which is the way they are shown in movie theaters. If you like to watch your movies in widescreen letter box format, be my guest. All I wanted to do by visiting this site was to try to find out if there were others that preferred fullscreen like me, and if so, whether it was possible to somehow get the industry to know that people are still interested in that format. Apparently I found the wrong blog for this purpose.

TheBaxter wrote:i think his issue is that we are stealing his precious tv screen "property" and filling it with black space. that's why it's marxist. i guess we just need to send him to the gulag for some "re-education".

WIDESCREEN GOOD! FULLSCREEN BAD!

I'll try to explain my point of view one more time, and I won't even mind that nobody in this site seems to know the true meaning of the Marxist and Fascist ideologies. By the way, it is all political.I have a widescreen TV, and I like to watch movies without the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen which is the way they are shown in movie theaters. If you like to watch your movies in widescreen letter box format, be my guest. All I wanted to do by visiting this site was to try to find out if there were others that preferred fullscreen like me, and if so, whether it was possible to somehow get the industry to know that people are still interested in that format. Apparently I found the wrong blog for this purpose.

It's OK movieguru. This place is full of cun ts really. Right or wrong, these guys didn't welcome or treat you well never mind what they say. I keep telling these guys to give a new member about 100 posts to get heir feet planted before they attack them so much. At least you lot could have gone easier on movieguru if you didn't like what he said. No wonder this palce is dieing and GOOD!

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:It's OK movieguru. This place is full of cun ts really. Right or wrong, these guys didn't welcome or treat you well never mind what they say. I keep telling these guys to give a new member about 100 posts to get heir feet planted before they attack them so much. At least you lot could have gone easier on movieguru if you didn't like what he said. No wonder this palce is dieing and GOOD!

*Takes movieguru's hand and walks off into the sunset with him, the great and good Chud Palace gleaming and waiting for us in the distance*

I signed up to Chud the other day and got flamed after a few posts for no apparent reason. I can't say I'd recommend the place.

movieguru1 wrote:I'll try to explain my point of view one more time, and I won't even mind that nobody in this site seems to know the true meaning of the Marxist and Fascist ideologies. By the way, it is all political.I have a widescreen TV, and I like to watch movies without the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen which is the way they are shown in movie theaters. If you like to watch your movies in widescreen letter box format, be my guest. All I wanted to do by visiting this site was to try to find out if there were others that preferred fullscreen like me, and if so, whether it was possible to somehow get the industry to know that people are still interested in that format. Apparently I found the wrong blog for this purpose.

I think part of the misunderstanding lies in the word "fullscreen". That word is generally used to describe the 4:3 aspect ratio - the traditional TV shape.

It also would've helped to tell us that you have a widescreen TV, as we were likely thinking that you were watching wide films on a square box and that you didn't like the letterboxing bars.

The thing you are detailing is the watching of film with an aspect ratio of the cinemascope type. As you and others have mentioned, if a director has shot their film in that aspect ratio it is generally for a particular reason (artistic or otherwise) and they like for people to see it that way. There are ways to eliminate the "black bars" if you are watching a film on DVD - usually some settings on your DVD player OR by getting your TV to expand the picture out to fill the screen.

But, again as others have said, while you get rid of the black bars, you might actually be missing part of the film - the Youtube link above details this extremely well. In general, most people who like films don't mind or put up with it.

Now, whether this is all caused by the bourgeosie...I will leave that up to you. Personally, I reckon it to be for technical/aesthethic/auteuristic/cinematical reasons.

If you've not found anyone who shares you view, then we can all probably comes to terms with it. I suspect you may get similar opinions from many movie forums, and you'll just have to agree to disagree.

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:It's OK movieguru. This place is full of cun ts really. Right or wrong, these guys didn't welcome or treat you well never mind what they say.

Fievel wrote:movieguru..... welcome to the Zone.

movieguru... since you have a widescreen TV, do you consider "full screen" something that would take up your entire screen (as widescreen should) or do you consider it to be a square picture that would have black bars on the left and right sides of the picture (or even worse, the square picture stretched out to fill your screen)?

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

There was a time, when we all had 19" TVs that this debate made sense. Now it's anachronistic. If you have a 50" TV, you watch whatever you can in widescreen. What really makes me laugh is when people see old TV shows coming out on DVD and wonder why they aren't made in WS. Should be fairly obvious. I think all DVD viewers should have to watch a short film on aspect ratios and what they mean to you and your TV.

Determinator wrote:There was a time, when we all had 19" TVs that this debate made sense. Now it's anachronistic. If you have a 50" TV, you watch whatever you can in widescreen. What really makes me laugh is when people see old TV shows coming out on DVD and wonder why they aren't made in WS. Should be fairly obvious. I think all DVD viewers should have to watch a short film on aspect ratios and what they mean to you and your TV.

I think that now we are having a civilized conversation, but then again I know that there may not be any fun in that, but I have to stay focused, and make my case again, and that is that for those of us who decided to go out and spend all kinds of money on a big widescreen TV to simulate the movie theater experience as much as possible, I just don't see why we have to accept some director, producer, or tech wonk in Hollywood deciding that the only way I can watch their movie is with two distracting black bars covering part of the screen, and reducing its effective viewing area. Now, I have watched some movies in both, widescreen and fullscreen formats, and again, at least to me the difference is negligible, and that may be because, and you correct me if I am wrong, that when they format the DVD in full screen somehow they are able to still squeeze in most of the contents, if not all. And then, if I am going to get conspiratorial paranoia, I begin to think that they want the public to only be able to view movies at home with bars so store bought DVDs will not compete with movie theaters since manipulating them at home through zoom and other methods does in fact reduce part of the picture and increases their graininess. After all have you seen the way some movies are presented on TV which between the top and bottom bars cover almost half the screen? Now what is that about? So there, I leave you to ponder the above.

if you can zoom in and fill up the screen with the picture, then what's the problem? if some added graininess in the picture bothers you more than chopping off part of the frame, then you've got your priorities backwards. and like i and others have pointed out above, when you see a movie in the theater, part of the screen is blocked off anyway if the aspect ratio of the film is different than the screen... so in fact, the black bars DO simulate the movie experience more accurately, because you see the WHOLE film, just like you would in a theater... if the black bars bug you so much, put curtains or screens in front of them, and then you've duplicated the theater experience precisely.

unless, that is, you wanted to simulate the experience of seeing a film in a theater with a sloppy projectionist who doesn't know how to properly frame the film, in which case, go ahead and crop and zoom away!

Determinator wrote:There was a time, when we all had 19" TVs that this debate made sense. Now it's anachronistic. If you have a 50" TV, you watch whatever you can in widescreen. What really makes me laugh is when people see old TV shows coming out on DVD and wonder why they aren't made in WS. Should be fairly obvious. I think all DVD viewers should have to watch a short film on aspect ratios and what they mean to you and your TV.

I think that now we are having a civilized conversation, but then again I know that there may not be any fun in that, but I have to stay focused, and make my case again, and that is that for those of us who decided to go out and spend all kinds of money on a big widescreen TV to simulate the movie theater experience as much as possible, I just don't see why we have to accept some director, producer, or tech wonk in Hollywood deciding that the only way I can watch their movie is with two distracting black bars covering part of the screen, and reducing its effective viewing area. Now, I have watched some movies in both, widescreen and fullscreen formats, and again, at least to me the difference is negligible, and that may be because, and you correct me if I am wrong, that when they format the DVD in full screen somehow they are able to still squeeze in most of the contents, if not all. And then, if I am going to get conspiratorial paranoia, I begin to think that they want the public to only be able to view movies at home with bars so store bought DVDs will not compete with movie theaters since manipulating them at home through zoom and other methods does in fact reduce part of the picture and increases their graininess. After all have you seen the way some movies are presented on TV which between the top and bottom bars cover almost half the screen? Now what is that about? So there, I leave you to ponder the above.

1. Have you ever seen a cinemascope presentation in a cinema?2. If yes, did you complain to the cinema manager that they weren't making full effective use of the viewing screen and that the vision of the director should be ignored?

I don't have a widescreen TV, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the appearance of the black bars in letterbox format be less on a widescreen TV vs a standard ratio screen? I mean, you're not getting black bars on all sides, right? And if the video is anamorphic shouldn't it fill the entire screen without any image loss?

I don't give a rat's ass about bars above and below. They're not distracting. What I want to see is the whole picture the director shot. If some technician in a lab somewhere has determined for me which parts of the picture the director shot I'm not allowed to see, then I'm upset. Show me the whole damn thing! I'm totally into letterboxing. Full screen sucks.

Determinator wrote:There was a time, when we all had 19" TVs that this debate made sense. Now it's anachronistic. If you have a 50" TV, you watch whatever you can in widescreen. What really makes me laugh is when people see old TV shows coming out on DVD and wonder why they aren't made in WS. Should be fairly obvious. I think all DVD viewers should have to watch a short film on aspect ratios and what they mean to you and your TV.

I think that now we are having a civilized conversation, but then again I know that there may not be any fun in that, but I have to stay focused, and make my case again, and that is that for those of us who decided to go out and spend all kinds of money on a big widescreen TV to simulate the movie theater experience as much as possible, I just don't see why we have to accept some director, producer, or tech wonk in Hollywood deciding that the only way I can watch their movie is with two distracting black bars covering part of the screen, and reducing its effective viewing area. Now, I have watched some movies in both, widescreen and fullscreen formats, and again, at least to me the difference is negligible, and that may be because, and you correct me if I am wrong, that when they format the DVD in full screen somehow they are able to still squeeze in most of the contents, if not all. And then, if I am going to get conspiratorial paranoia, I begin to think that they want the public to only be able to view movies at home with bars so store bought DVDs will not compete with movie theaters since manipulating them at home through zoom and other methods does in fact reduce part of the picture and increases their graininess. After all have you seen the way some movies are presented on TV which between the top and bottom bars cover almost half the screen? Now what is that about? So there, I leave you to ponder the above.

If you have a widescreen TV and you still have black bars its because the movie you are watching is wider than your TV. I think you are mis-speaking when you use the term "fullscreen." Am I correct in assuming you mean an image that completely fills your screen without any bars? If so that is still a widescreen image. Fullscreen refers to the TVs of yore that were square in nature and any image that completely filled it. This where the previously mentioned term aspect ratio comes in, which is the relationship between width and height. Your 16x9 widescreen television has an aspect ratio 1.78 to 1. That means, using an arbitrary and convenient measure, for every 1.78 feet in width there is a height of 1 foot. Any movie you watch on that TV that has bars on it most likely has an aspect ratio 2.35 to 1, which is close to double the width of your TV. If you shrink the width of that image to fit on your TV then you also have to shrink the height. That's where the bars come in. It's not a conspiracy. It's math. It's the filmmakers wanting you to see exactly what was photographed. Now, fullscreen as I mentioned above refers to an aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1. That is less wide than your TV and is the reason why there are black bars on the sides of the image when you watch older television programs. Modern HD television is in 1.78 to 1 which is why it fills your screen. Your widescreen. I hope this explains it and puts your worries at ease, but if not you'll have to get one of these if you want to get rid of the black bars when you watch your Fight Club DVD.